Hello Henry,
My functional programming and lamda calc bakground is virtually non-existent, but I've been making some progress are absorbing http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/compositional.pdf. At least enough to spot some *possible* typo's/inconsistencies (or simply lack of understanding on my part).
Eqns 4-6 and sequel spell out the symbol 'lambda' whereas earlier and subsequent formulae use a greek letter symbol
Eqn (8): add_to_graph(<triple>) seems strangely imperative for such an otherwise functional formulation. Would it be more in keeping with the overall style to say 'in_graph(<triple>)' or some other appropriate predicate? [of course you could argue 'add_to_graph' is just a predicate and I'm reading too much into its name.]
Eqns (8-11): use a function(?) 'a' which appears to retrieve the value of an attribute (used for rdf:about and rdf:resource) on an rdf:Description element is not explained in the narrative, or perhaps given eqn (7), its that 'e.a' introduced as attributes is (possibly) a function(?) between attribute name and attribute value.
Conclusion:
Re 1st bullet: - "The compositional semantics of an XML language"
I' m interested in what you might be claiming has been accomplished. It seems to me that in this formulation the meaning of attributes is very much scoped by the elements in which they occur (you treat them separately, I think, from the children of an element)... so for say, something like xlink which as a syntax lives entirely within attributes... is it possible to independently specify the compositional properties of xlink. I can quite accept an answer that would say, well actually xlink isn't an XML language at all, it is a component of a language that may be cited in the defn of a language and it is that language which can have a compositional semantic.
For XML I'd find an example of what the element label (e.l) arising from an element with say attributes and complex content is useful. eg. is it the full text of the element from opening tag to closing tag, possibly, though not necessarily, canonicalised?
Thanks,
Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: 06 December 2007 17:33
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New draft of Elaborated Infosets document
> (xmlFunctions-34)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ht writes:
>
> > As several editorial notes therein suggest, I'm not at all
> sure how to
> > integrate this [1] into Web Architecture. There are at least two
> > (partially interdependent) questions this draft doesn't answer:
> >
> > 1) What is the role of the application in controlling the
> elaboration
> > process?
> >
> > 2) What is the right model for the relationship between elaboration,
> > understood as the specification/construction of an infoset, and
> > application semantics, particularly in the case of mixed
> namespace
> > documents?
>
> I have delved pretty deep into this question over the last 10
> days, and produced an attempt at a formalisation of an answer
> [2]. Comments invited. Warning -- there be greek letters
> (including lambda) and upside-down As and such-like in it.
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset/
> [2] http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/compositional.pdf
> - --
> Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group,
> University of Edinburgh
> Half-time member of W3C Team
> 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44)
> 131 650-4440
> Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
> URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail
> really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is
> forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHWDJekjnJixAXWBoRAp0SAJ9J9ShENRm3PANr9OIOOafwmgGdUACfSCiN
> +0kyZ7KCp4Cqf3XT/ch4o+8=
> =NbOt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>